Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
When a cargo ship laden with electronics from Asia, automobiles from Europe, or fresh produce from Mexico arrives at a U.S. port, a complex process kicks into gear. Before those goods can enter the American marketplace, a tax is often levied on them. This tax is known as a tariff, or a customs duty.
Once that tax is paid, where does the money actually go? Does it fund a specific program? Does the President decide how to spend it?
This guide traces the journey of a tariff dollar—from the moment it’s collected at the border to its ultimate destination within the vast machinery of the federal budget.
The Journey of a Tariff Dollar
The path of tariff revenue begins with an American business making a decision to import goods. The journey involves a specific payer, a federal collector, and a detailed rulebook that governs the entire transaction.
The Importer Pays
A persistent misconception about tariffs is that they’re paid by the foreign countries whose goods are being taxed. In fact, the financial responsibility for paying a U.S. tariff falls squarely on the U.S. importer of record. This is the American company, business, or individual that is legally bringing the goods into the country. The money is paid directly to the U.S. government.
While the U.S. government collects the tax from the American importer, the private contract between the foreign seller and the U.S. buyer can specify who ultimately bears the cost. These arrangements are governed by international commercial terms, or Incoterms.
For example, under terms known as Delivered Duty Paid (DDP), the foreign seller agrees to cover all costs, including the tariff, to get the goods to the buyer’s destination. Conversely, under terms like Delivered at Place (DAP), the U.S. buyer is responsible for paying the import duties upon arrival.
Regardless of this private agreement, the check is written to the U.S. government by the registered U.S. importer.
These importers then face a choice: absorb the extra cost, which reduces their profit margins, or pass the cost along to their customers—wholesalers, retailers, and ultimately, American consumers—in the form of higher prices. Economic analyses consistently show that the vast majority of tariff costs are passed on to domestic consumers.
How U.S. Customs and Border Protection Works
The federal agency on the front lines of tariff collection is U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security. CBP agents administer and enforce tariff regulations at all 328 official ports of entry across the United States, including seaports, airports, and land border crossings.
The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for establishing the regulations for this collection process.
The collection process isn’t arbitrary; it’s governed by a highly detailed and complex legal document.
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Every tariff is assessed according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This massive compendium, published by the U.S. International Trade Commission, is based on a globally standardized nomenclature that classifies virtually every product imaginable.
Each product is assigned a specific code, which determines the duty rate. For example, in 2024, different types of milk had different tariff rates depending on their fat content, and passenger cars had a rate of 2.5% while certain golf shoes were taxed at 6%.
While the USITC publishes the HTS, only CBP has the authority to issue legally binding interpretations of it.
The Collection Process
The process for collecting the duty at a port of entry is designed to balance revenue collection with the need to keep commerce moving swiftly. The system functions largely on a principle of upfront declaration and post-clearance verification.
Self-Classification and Declaration: When goods arrive, the importer is responsible for declaring what the products are, where they came from, and their value. The importer “self-classifies” the goods by assigning the appropriate HTS code.
Immediate Payment: To prevent goods from being held up at the port for extended periods, the importer pays the calculated duty immediately, typically through a bank transfer rather than a credit card or other consumer payment method. This payment is based on what is essentially a preliminary assessment.
CBP Review and Audits: CBP reviews the submitted paperwork for accuracy. The agency doesn’t physically inspect every single item in the millions of shipping containers that arrive each year; doing so would grind international trade to a standstill.
Instead, it relies on a system of risk management, data analysis, and occasional audits to ensure compliance. If an importer is found to have misclassified goods or undervalued them, intentionally or not, CBP can issue penalties and seize goods.
Importers have the right to protest CBP’s determination if they believe a product was misclassified, which triggers an internal review process that can take months.
Deposit into the Treasury: After collecting the tariffs, along with any administrative fees or penalties, CBP’s final step is to deposit the revenue into the General Fund of the United States Treasury. This is the crucial handoff where the money officially enters the federal government’s main financial accounts.
This entire process reflects a fundamental operational choice: prioritizing the velocity of commerce by trusting importers’ initial declarations, while using the threat of audits and stiff penalties as the primary enforcement tool. It’s a system built for efficiency, balancing the need for revenue security with the economic necessity of a fluid global supply chain.
The General Fund: The Government’s Main Bank Account
Once CBP deposits the tariff money, its journey as a distinct “tariff dollar” ends. It flows into a vast financial reservoir from which nearly all federal government spending is paid.
What is the Treasury General Fund?
The General Fund of the U.S. Government is the primary bank account for the nation. Managed by the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, it’s often described as “America’s Checkbook.”
The General Fund consists of the assets and liabilities used to finance the daily and long-term operations of the U.S. government. Its operational component, the Treasury General Account, is held at the Federal Reserve and functions like the government’s main checking account, receiving inflows from taxes and other revenue, and disbursing outflows for government payments.
All federal revenues that aren’t specifically required by law to be deposited into a separate fund are credited to the General Fund. This means that customs duties are deposited alongside the largest sources of federal revenue, including individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, and various excise taxes and fees.
Why Tariff Dollars Aren’t Earmarked
This is the most critical point in understanding where tariff money goes: once it enters the General Fund, it becomes fungible. This means it’s commingled with all other money and loses its specific identity as “tariff revenue.” It’s simply part of the total pool of money available to the government.
Crucially, this means that tariff revenue isn’t earmarked for any specific purpose. The President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of CBP have no legal authority to take the money collected from tariffs and decide to spend it on a particular project or initiative.
It’s treated no differently than money collected by the IRS from income taxes. As Professor Timothy Meyer of Duke University School of Law explained to Marketplace, the President “cannot just turn around and spend the income tax dollars that the IRS collects and remits into the general revenue of the Treasury.” The same principle applies to tariffs.
This stands in sharp contrast to other federal taxes that are earmarked by law. The most prominent examples are the payroll taxes collected under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). These taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare, are legally required to be deposited into specific trust funds that can only be used to pay for those programs.
Tariff revenue has no such legal restriction; its destination is the general pool of federal funds.
Constitutional Separation of Powers
The deposit of tariff revenue into the General Fund isn’t merely an accounting convention; it’s a procedure rooted in the constitutional separation of powers. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the “power of the purse,” meaning only the legislative branch can decide how public money is spent.
The process for tariff revenue honors this principle perfectly. The executive branch, through CBP, is responsible for collecting the tax. However, once collected, the money flows into the General Fund, where the executive branch has no authority to spend it.
Only an act of Congress—an appropriations bill passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President—can authorize money to be withdrawn from the General Fund to pay for government activities.
This system ensures that the branch that collects a tax isn’t the same branch that unilaterally decides how to use the proceeds, preventing the executive from creating an independent, off-the-books funding stream and preserving Congress’s central constitutional role in controlling federal spending.
From the General Fund to Government Programs
Since tariff revenue joins the vast pool of money in the General Fund, it ultimately helps pay for everything the federal government does. The annual federal budget and appropriations process transforms that pool of revenue into tangible government services.
The Federal Budget Process
The federal budget process is a year-long cycle involving both the executive and legislative branches. It determines how the money in the General Fund will be allocated.
The President Proposes: The process officially begins when the President submits a detailed budget proposal to Congress, typically on the first Monday in February. This document, prepared by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget in consultation with all federal agencies, lays out the administration’s spending priorities for the upcoming fiscal year (which begins on October 1).
It’s a comprehensive request, but it’s not a law.
Congress Decides: Congress isn’t obligated to adopt the President’s budget. Instead, it uses the proposal as a starting point. The House and Senate Budget Committees each draft their own “budget resolution,” a non-binding framework that sets overall spending and revenue targets.
The real work happens in the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate. These committees, through their 12 subcommittees, draft the annual appropriations bills that legally authorize the government to spend money. These bills specify how much funding each federal agency and program will receive.
The President Signs: After the House and Senate negotiate and pass identical versions of the appropriations bills, they’re sent to the President for a signature. Once signed, they become law.
Agencies Spend: With the appropriations laws in place, the Treasury Department can disburse money from the General Fund to federal agencies. Those agencies then have the legal authority—the “budget authority”—to spend that money on their designated functions, such as paying employee salaries, awarding contracts, and providing services to the public.
Two Types of Spending
The money flowing out of the General Fund is generally divided into two main categories:
Mandatory Spending: This is spending dictated by existing laws rather than the annual appropriations process. It includes funding for massive entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as veterans’ benefits and interest payments on the national debt.
The funding levels are determined by eligibility rules and benefit formulas set in permanent law, so this spending occurs “automatically” each year. Mandatory spending accounts for the majority of the federal budget.
Discretionary Spending: This is the portion of the budget that Congress decides on annually through the 12 appropriations bills. It covers a wide array of government functions, including national defense, homeland security (which funds CBP’s operations), education, transportation and infrastructure, scientific research at agencies like the National Science Foundation, environmental protection, and the operation of national parks.
The revenue from tariffs, once commingled in the General Fund, helps finance all of these expenditures. It contributes to the pool of money used to pay for everything from a Social Security check mailed to a retiree in Florida, to the salary of a soldier stationed overseas, to the grant funding a medical researcher in California.
The Political Connection
While tariff revenue isn’t legally earmarked, it often becomes politically linked to other fiscal policies. It’s common for politicians to claim that revenue from a new tariff will “pay for” a proposed tax cut or a new spending initiative.
From a legal and accounting standpoint, this isn’t accurate; the tariff revenue goes into the general pot, and the new policy is a separate action that draws from that same pot. However, from a broader fiscal perspective, there’s a logic to this framing.
On the government’s overall balance sheet, new revenue can be seen as offsetting a new cost. The Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan agency that analyzes the financial impact of legislation, evaluates tariffs in this way. It projects how much revenue a tariff will raise and how that revenue will affect the total federal deficit.
This creates a critical distinction: the legal path of the money is that it’s not earmarked, but the fiscal argument is that it can be used to offset other costs and reduce overall government borrowing.
The Historical Context: How Tariffs Changed
The modern system, where tariffs are a minor source of revenue and a tool of policy, is a relatively recent development. For most of American history, the opposite was true.
The Revenue Period (1789–1913)
From the very first session of Congress in 1789, tariffs were established as the primary financial engine of the new federal government. For over a century, customs duties were the largest single source of federal revenue, at times accounting for as much as 95% of the government’s total income.
The founders saw tariffs as a more efficient and politically acceptable way to raise money than internal taxes on property or sales, which were difficult to collect and often controversial.
Because of their fiscal importance, tariff policy was a central and divisive political issue throughout the 19th century. The debate typically pitted the industrializing North, which favored high, protective tariffs to shield its factories from foreign competition, against the agrarian South, which favored low tariffs to keep the price of imported goods down.
The Turning Point: The 16th Amendment
The entire fiscal landscape of the United States was fundamentally and permanently altered in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes.”
The subsequent Underwood Tariff Act of 1913 both lowered tariff rates and reimposed the federal income tax.
This created a massive new stream of revenue that quickly dwarfed the income from customs duties. With the federal government no longer dependent on tariffs to fund its basic operations, their primary purpose shifted. Tariffs were transformed from an essential revenue tool into an instrument of economic and foreign policy.
This new reality was demonstrated by two landmark pieces of legislation in the 1930s. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 used tariffs in an attempt to protect American industries during the Great Depression, while the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 delegated authority to the President to use tariffs as a bargaining chip to negotiate trade deals.
Modern Implications
This historical development is the direct cause of our modern policy environment. In the 19th century, the federal government couldn’t have engaged in a large-scale trade war by imposing high tariffs, because a collapse in imports would have effectively bankrupted the nation.
The creation of the income tax decoupled federal revenue from the volume of international trade. This gave policymakers newfound freedom to raise or lower tariffs to achieve strategic goals—protecting an industry, punishing a trade partner, or negotiating an agreement—without risking the fiscal collapse of the government.
The modern political debates over tariffs are only possible because of this foundational shift in how the U.S. government funds itself.
| Fiscal Year | Customs Duties Revenue (Millions) | Total Federal Revenue (Millions) | Duties as % of Total Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1865 | $84.9 | $333.7 | 25.4% |
| 1900 | $233.2 | $567.2 | 41.1% |
| 1915 | $209.3 | $695.8 | 30.1% |
| 1935 | $343.4 | $3,800.0 | 9.0% |
| 1960 | $1,105.0 | $92,492.0 | 1.2% |
| 2000 | $20,988.0 | $2,025,191.0 | 1.0% |
| 2017 | $34,550.0 | $3,314,894.0 | 1.0% |
| 2022 | $102,333.0 | $4,896,128.0 | 2.1% |
| 2024 | $82,969.0 | $4,470,000.0 (approx.) | 1.8% |
Sources: Data compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) database, and USAFacts.
Putting It in Perspective: The Numbers
While tariff revenue has surged at times in recent years due to new trade policies, it remains a very small piece of the overall federal financial picture.
A Drop in the Revenue Bucket
In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. federal government collected approximately $4.92 trillion in total revenue. Of that amount, customs duties (tariffs) accounted for roughly $83 billion. This means that tariff revenue constituted only about 1.8% of all federal revenue.
This small share is consistent with the historical trend since the end of World War II. Over the past 70 years, customs duties have rarely accounted for more than 2% of total federal receipts.
The vast majority of the government’s funding comes from other sources. In fiscal year 2024, individual income taxes were the largest source, bringing in $2.4 trillion (49% of the total), followed by payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which generated $1.7 trillion (35%).
| Revenue Source | Revenue (FY 2024) | Percentage of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Income Taxes | $2.4 Trillion | 49% |
| Payroll Taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) | $1.7 Trillion | 35% |
| Corporate Income Taxes | $530 Billion | 11% |
| Customs Duties (Tariffs), Excise, Estate, and Other Taxes | $253 Billion | 5% |
| Total | ~$4.9 Trillion | 100% |
Source: Data compiled from the Bipartisan Policy Center and USAFacts. Note: The $253 billion category combines customs duties with several other smaller tax sources.
The Economic Reality: Gross vs. Net Revenue
The headline tariff revenue figure represents the gross amount collected by CBP. However, the net impact on the federal deficit is typically smaller. This is because tariffs, as a tax on business inputs and consumer goods, can have a dampening effect on the broader economy.
By raising costs, they can lead to slightly lower business profits and household incomes. This, in turn, results in reduced collections of income and payroll taxes.
This phenomenon is known as the “income and payroll tax offset.” Non-partisan scoring organizations like the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Foundation estimate this offset to be around 25% of gross tariff revenue.
In other words, for every $1 billion in tariffs collected, the government might lose around $250 million in other tax revenue, for a net gain of $750 million.
Furthermore, analyses by the CBO have found that high tariffs can reduce overall economic output (real GDP), which further erodes the net revenue gain for the government.
The Disconnect Between Politics and Finance
This reality reveals a significant disconnect between the fiscal impact of tariffs and their political prominence. Despite being a minor source of federal revenue, tariff policy has been a dominant and often volatile political issue, capable of moving global markets and shaping international relations.
This suggests that the symbolic and strategic value of tariffs as a policy lever—used to signal a stance on trade, national security, or foreign policy—far outweighs their direct financial value in funding the government.
The intensity of the debate surrounding tariffs is driven by their perceived impact on jobs, prices, and international power dynamics, not by their modest contribution to the U.S. Treasury.
The Exception That Proves the Rule
While the steadfast rule is that tariff revenue flows into the General Fund, there has been one major historical exception. The story of this exception—why it was created and why it was repealed—powerfully reinforces the strength of the default rule.
The “Byrd Amendment”
In 2000, Congress passed the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), more commonly known as the “Byrd Amendment” after its chief sponsor, Senator Robert Byrd. This law created a radical departure from standard practice.
It mandated that revenue collected from a specific category of tariffs—Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD)—should not go to the Treasury’s General Fund.
Antidumping duties are imposed when foreign producers sell goods in the U.S. at unfairly low prices (a practice called “dumping”), and countervailing duties are imposed when foreign governments provide illegal subsidies to their exporters.
Under the Byrd Amendment, the duties collected in these cases were to be distributed directly to the American companies that had petitioned the government and been found to be injured by these unfair trade practices.
The stated purpose of the law was to strengthen the remedial power of U.S. trade laws and provide direct financial relief to domestic producers to help them stay in business and compete against unfairly traded imports. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, over $1 billion in collected duties was disbursed to U.S. companies under this act.
Why It Was Repealed: The WTO Challenge
The Byrd Amendment was immediately and intensely controversial on the world stage. A coalition of 11 major U.S. trading partners, including the European Union, Canada, Japan, and Mexico, formally challenged the law at the World Trade Organization (WTO), arguing it violated U.S. commitments under international trade agreements.
In 2003, the WTO’s Appellate Body ruled against the United States. The core of the ruling was that the CDSOA constituted a “specific action against dumping” that wasn’t permitted under WTO rules.
The allowed remedy for dumping is the imposition of a tariff to level the playing field. By taking the collected duties and giving them as a subsidy to the foreign company’s direct U.S. competitors, the Byrd Amendment was found to penalize foreign producers a second time, further distorting the conditions of competition in a way that wasn’t authorized by the agreements.
The WTO authorized the complaining countries to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports until the law was repealed. In 2005, Canada and the European Union began imposing a 15% additional duty on selected American goods.
Facing this direct economic pressure and international condemnation, Congress passed legislation in 2006 that repealed the Byrd Amendment, with the repeal becoming fully effective on October 1, 2007.
The Lesson
The saga of the Byrd Amendment serves as a powerful real-world lesson. It shows that U.S. tariff policy, including the destination of the revenue, doesn’t operate in a domestic vacuum.
Congress can pass a law to earmark tariff funds, but that domestic law can be challenged if it conflicts with the international commitments the U.S. has made as a member of the global rules-based trading system it was instrumental in creating.
The ultimate failure of the Byrd Amendment demonstrates that the default rule—that tariff money goes to the General Fund—is reinforced by both a century of domestic fiscal tradition and the binding constraints of international trade law.
Common Questions About Tariffs
What’s the difference between a tariff, a duty, and a tax?
The terms “tariff” and “duty” (or “customs duty”) are generally used interchangeably to refer to a tax that is specifically levied on imported goods. A “tax” is a much broader term that encompasses all forms of government levies, including income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes.
In short, all tariffs are a type of tax, but most taxes aren’t tariffs.
Who is in charge of setting tariff rates in the U.S.?
The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the fundamental power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” However, beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, Congress has passed a series of laws that delegate significant authority to the President to set, adjust, and negotiate tariffs under specific conditions.
Key statutes that grant the President this authority include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (for national security reasons), Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (to protect industries from import surges), and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (to retaliate against unfair trade practices).
How can I find the tariff rate for a specific product?
To determine the tariff rate for a product, you must first identify its unique 10-digit code in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. You can start by using the U.S. Census Bureau’s free Schedule B Search Engine to find the first six digits of the code, which are internationally standardized.
With that code, you can then use the U.S. International Trade Commission’s HTS Online Reference Tool to find the full 10-digit code and the corresponding U.S. tariff rates.
If the U.S. has a Free Trade Agreement with the country of origin, you can check for lower preferential rates using the International Trade Administration’s FTA Tariff Tool.
Do consumers ultimately feel the cost?
Yes, in most cases, the cost of tariffs is ultimately passed on to American consumers. While the U.S. importing company writes the check to the government, they typically raise the prices of their goods to cover this added expense.
Multiple economic studies have found that U.S. firms and consumers bear nearly the entire burden of the tariffs. For this reason, tariffs are often described as a regressive tax, as the resulting price increases for everyday goods can have a larger proportional impact on the budgets of lower-income households.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
